Austin City Council Candidate Questionnaire 2026

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

Yes. I will commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against local, state, or federal efforts to redirect, reduce, or obstruct that funding or delay construction with the initial project that included the Green Line. As a community leader in East Austin, I was frustrated by the initial Project Connect plan because the communities that have the greatest need for reliable transit and the residents who are most likely to actually depend on it were slated to receive it last. For communities in the eastern portions of District 1, transit access is not simply about convenience. It is about connecting people to jobs, education, healthcare, essential services, and the rest of our city.

That is why, while I strongly support protecting the entirety of Project Connect, I also want to see the Green Line brought back and prioritized. The Green Line should be viewed as more than a rail project, it should be viewed as a regional planning investment that can connect East Austin to downtown and, ultimately, communities such as Manor and Elgin, while helping coordinate transportation, housing, economic development, infrastructure, and community services along the corridor. I will advocate for an implementation strategy that recognizes existing transit inequities and prioritizes communities that have historically been underserved and have the fewest transportation options. As a Council Member, I will work with CapMetro, Austin Transit Partnership, and regional, state, and federal partners to protect Project Connect funding and keep the program moving forward. I will also push to advance the Green Line as quickly and responsibly as possible so that residents in eastern District 1 are not once again told to wait for the transportation investments they need and deserve.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

No, I do not believe missing-middle housing should be allowed by-right in every single-family zone without consideration of the surrounding infrastructure and neighborhood context. I support missing-middle housing including duplexes, townhomes, and multiplexes but I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to development. East Austin, for example, has had duplexes, townhomes, and multiplexes for decades, in part because of our smaller lot sizes and the way many of our neighborhoods have historically developed.

My concern is what happens when we significantly increase density without making sure the infrastructure can support it. As a neighborhood leader, I experienced this firsthand with a proposed development off Deloney Street in my contact team area. The property owner initially sought an upzoning and level of development that I and other community members believed the surrounding neighborhood and existing infrastructure could not adequately support. Rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach, we worked together to find a middle ground that allowed additional housing while better fitting the context of the neighborhood. That is the type of approach I believe Austin needs.

I would support missing-middle housing where the existing infrastructure and surrounding context can support it, while also ensuring that development is accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support additional residents including drainage, sidewalks, transportation, utilities, and other community needs. We should also consider lot size, existing development patterns, environmental constraints, and proximity to transit and services. My goal is not to prevent housing from being built; it is to make sure we are building responsibly and planning for the people who will live there. We can create more housing choices without assuming that the same development model works in every neighborhood. Good planning means finding the balance between housing opportunity, infrastructure capacity, and the character and needs of the community.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

No. I would not have voted for the HOME initiative as it was passed. I support expanding housing choices but I did not believe HOME, as adopted, adequately addressed the very real risk of displacement facing many of Austin’s historically Black, Brown, and working-class neighborhoods. As a community leader, I have seen firsthand what happens when development moves into communities without sufficient protections for the people who already live there. Austin’s own analysis recognized displacement as a concern, and the City’s Commission raised similar concerns about the impact on historically marginalized neighborhoods. I do believe some housing projects should be easier to build but that should not mean easier at the expense of existing residents. We need to pair housing production with meaningful affordability and anti-displacement strategies. If I could change HOME, I would create stronger anti-displacement protections in areas experiencing high displacement risk, including along Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) areas and major transportation corridors, where increased development pressure can rapidly drive up land values, rents, and property taxes. I would prioritize the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) so that adding new units does not come at the cost of losing existing affordable homes, while also requiring a stronger affordability component in areas receiving substantial increases in development capacity. I would strengthen the preservation bonus so that preserving existing homes is financially competitive with demolishing and redeveloping them, and invest in community land acquisition and land banking so that community organizations and the City can preserve properties before speculation and redevelopment drive up prices. Increased development capacity must also be paired with infrastructure planning including drainage, sidewalks, transportation, parks, and other neighborhood needs, so that communities are equipped to support growth. Finally, I would require meaningful community engagement, particularly in historically marginalized neighborhoods, so that residents have a meaningful voice in how development occurs and can help shape growth rather than being displaced by it. The goal should not be to choose between building more housing and protecting existing residents. Austin needs to do both. I believe we can build more homes, create more housing choices, and increase affordability while also making sure that the people who have called these neighborhoods home for generations can actually afford to remain there. Housing policy should create opportunity, not accelerate displacement.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

I am still looking at the data to fully understand the extent to which building more market-rate housing has contributed to Austin’s recent rent reductions and, importantly, who has actually benefited from those reductions. What the data does tell us is that Austin has added a significant amount of housing, and that increased supply has helped put downward pressure on rents across the city. At the same time, the City’s own research acknowledges that households at the lowest income levels have not benefited from those rent reductions to the same extent.

That distinction is important to me because I have personally witnessed mass displacement in the part of District 1 where I live. I don’t believe we should dismiss the role that additional housing supply can play in affordability, but I also don’t believe we can point to declining rents citywide and say that the affordability problem is solved. Market-rate housing does not automatically create housing that is affordable to a family making 30%, 40%, or 50% of the median family income. Austin continues to have a significant shortage of housing affordable to renters below 50% MFI.

So I am still looking to see the full effects and benefits of market-rate development, but I believe the answer cannot simply be build more and assume affordability will follow. We need to build more housing while also being intentional about what we build, where we build it, and who it serves. That means pairing market-rate housing with deeply affordable housing, family-sized units, preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, and meaningful anti-displacement strategies. Lower rents are important, but affordability is more than a citywide average it is whether a longtime District 1 resident, a recent graduate or a working family can actually afford to remain in their community. This is the work I have done as Chair of my neighborhood association and co-chair of my contact team.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes. I support increasing the number and variety of transit and transportation options available to residents, but I also believe people have the right to choose whatever option works best for them and their families. Our responsibility as a city is to provide safe, accessible, efficient, and reliable transportation options so that residents can get where they need to go without being forced into one particular mode of transportation. We have to do a better job of connecting neighborhoods to jobs, schools, healthcare, grocery stores, parks, and other essential services. In Austin, it can take people upwards of an hour to get across the city, and that is a significant burden on working families. At the same time, we should be working toward an Austin where people have economic opportunities closer to where they live, reducing the need for long commutes in the first place. Growing up in Chicago, I experienced what a robust transportation network can look like, one that included trains, buses, biking, and cars, giving people multiple ways to get around. Austin should strive for that same level of choice and it needs to be reliable. For District 1, that means investing in reliable transit, improving sidewalks and safe crossings, expanding bike infrastructure where appropriate, and making sure transportation investments reach communities that have historically had fewer options. Mobility is about choice, and our job as a city is to make sure residents actually have meaningful choices.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

I would improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails by prioritizing projects that address the biggest safety and connectivity gaps and connect residents to transit, schools, jobs, parks, healthcare, and other essential services. I would utilize Small Area Mobility Plans (SAMPs) to identify the specific mobility needs and infrastructure gaps within neighborhoods and use those plans to help prioritize investments based on community needs. In District 1, that means focusing on neighborhoods that have historically lacked safe and connected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, while also ensuring that new development is accompanied by the infrastructure needed to support it. This is a big portion of our district. I would prioritize completing missing sidewalk connections, improving accessibility and safe crossings, expanding connected bike infrastructure where appropriate, and investing in trails that connect neighborhoods rather than creating isolated segments. Funding is one of the biggest challenges we face. We are currently dealing with uncertainty around federal infrastructure funding and the loss or potential reduction of federal support under the Trump Administration, which makes long-term local planning more difficult. Because of that uncertainty, Austin needs to diversify how we fund these critical investments by strategically using local transportation and mobility funding, pursuing state and federal grants when available, leveraging partnerships, and ensuring transportation dollars are directed toward projects with the greatest community benefit. We also need to be transparent with residents about what we can fund, what is dependent on outside funding, and how projects are prioritized. Safe sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails are not amenities, they are essential infrastructure that allows people to move safely, access opportunity, and stay connected to their communities.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

My strategy would be to use every tool available while being strategic about where and how we invest public dollars. That includes protecting and prioritizing the City’s affordable housing bond funding, leveraging federal and state resources when available, utilizing public land where appropriate, and pursuing public-private partnerships with developers, community-based organizations, and nonprofits that have a proven track record of producing and preserving affordable housing. Projects like Seabrook Square demonstrate the potential of bringing together public resources and private and nonprofit partners to create significant affordable housing opportunities. I would also support community land acquisition and land banking so we can preserve land for long-term affordability before speculation drives up prices. We should look for ways to reduce development costs for affordable housing through streamlined permitting, fee relief where appropriate, infrastructure coordination, and partnerships that help make projects financially feasible without sacrificing affordability. At the same time, we should strengthen the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing and support the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing properties, which can often be more cost-effective than building entirely new units. I would also reassess density bonus programs that are not producing the intended results and ensure that any incentives we provide are tied to measurable affordability outcomes. We have to be honest about our fiscal limitations, but we cannot allow those limitations to become an excuse for inaction. We need to be creative, collaborative, and strategic with every dollar available to us, while focusing on producing and preserving deeply affordable, family-sized housing, particularly in communities at the greatest risk of displacement.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

I believe one of the biggest barriers is that we have not fully embraced the idea that affordability is a citywide responsibility. East Austin should not have to bear the brunt of Austin’s housing and affordability challenges while wealthier, high-resource areas produce significantly less affordable housing. Every district and every part of our city needs to step up and contribute to the solution. District 1 has already surpassed its affordable housing goal, and I believe other parts of Austin need to do their part as well.

We also need to recognize that affordability is about more than the number of housing units we build. Austin has added a significant amount of housing, but much of the newer housing is still only attainable to certain income levels, and too much of what is being built is limited to one- and two-bedroom units. We need to be much more intentional about the type of housing we produce, including deeply affordable housing and more three- and four-bedroom homes that can meet the needs of families. Projects like Seabrook Square demonstrate what is possible when we intentionally bring together affordability, family-sized housing, community needs, and public-private partnerships.

As a Council Member, I would work to reduce barriers to affordable housing production by expanding housing opportunities in high-resource areas, streamlining permitting, leveraging public land and partnerships, and ensuring that City incentives and development programs actually produce meaningful affordability. But we also need to address the cultural and political barriers that determine where we are willing to build. High-resource communities cannot continue to say, in effect, “build it somewhere else.” We need housing throughout Austin in every district and every neighborhood while also protecting communities experiencing displacement. If we are serious about solving Austin’s affordability crisis, every part of Austin has to be part of the solution.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?
My position would be opposition to the MoPac South project as currently proposed, a pause while we evaluate whether the expansion is actually necessary and what its appropriate scope should be which was a recommendation given by the Environmental Commission and a stronger focus on transit, safety, transportation-demand reduction, environmental protection, and regional planning. I would also push the City to take a stronger and more comprehensive position. We could also ask for stronger tree protections and native replanting, no net loss on parkland and small construction limits to protect surrounding green space. I would support continuing to engage with CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT, while making clear that Austin needs a better evaluation of alternatives before moving forward. In particular, supporting the City’s request for a full Environmental Impact Statement and a thorough evaluation of whether the project can be reduced in scope or redesigned. I would also want the analysis to account for the transportation investments already underway including Project Connect and other regional improvements before determining how much additional highway capacity is actually needed. At the same time, I would not simply say “no” and walk away from the mobility needs of people who rely on MoPac. I would push for targeted safety and congestion improvements, better transit options, park-and-rides, express bus service, and transportation demand-management strategies that give people more choices and could reduce the need for additional highway capacity. Most importantly, I would want the City to advocate for a multimodal approach to the corridor rather than treating highway expansion as the only solution. We need to look at how we can move people more efficiently while also supporting Austin’s broader transportation, climate, and community goals.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

I support reliable, affordable public transportation and believe Austin must honor the public’s investment in transit. Project Connect can expand access to jobs, schools, health care, and daily needs—especially for residents who cannot depend on a car.

But honoring voters also means being honest when a project changes in ways that are materially different from what the public approved. If Project Connect’s cost, scope, timeline, or core commitments substantially depart from the plan voters were presented. I’d support taking those major changes back to the voters for approval.

That is not a vote against transit. It is a vote for transparency, accountability, and public trust. Austin should not use a past vote as a blank check for a fundamentally different project.

I’d oppose efforts to redirect dedicated transit funding to unrelated purposes or undermine essential transit service. At the same time, I will insist on clear public reporting, equitable investment in District 1, responsible financial management, and a meaningful public vote when major changes require the community to make a new commitment.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

I support missing-middle housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes, small apartments, and other modest-scale homes) as part of the answer to Austin’s affordability crisis. District 1 needs more housing choices for young people, working families, seniors, and longtime residents who want to stay in the neighborhoods that raised them.

But “by right” can’t mean a blank check for speculative redevelopment, or a one-size-fits-all policy handed down from City Hall. That’s exactly why I opposed HOME as written and stood against Proposition Q: neither gave District 1 residents real confidence that new development would create homes they could actually afford, rather than speed up displacement.

I’d support missing-middle housing where it actually makes sense (like along transit-served corridors), where new homes can connect residents to jobs and schools. But it has to come paired with real protections: an anti-displacement overlay, support for longtime homeowners and heirs’ property owners, real pathways to homeownership, affordability requirements when public incentives are involved, and clear tracking of who’s actually benefiting and who’s getting pushed out.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

I would not have voted for HOME as it was passed. I support adding more housing choices in District 1, including duplexes, small multifamily homes, and opportunities for families to build wealth on the land they already own. But I could not support a policy that moved forward without enough transparency, meaningful engagement with the neighborhoods most affected, or strong protections against displacement.

Austin needs more homes, but simply allowing more units everywhere does not guarantee longtime residents, renters, seniors, and working families can afford them. In District 1, where gentrification pressure is already severe, growth without guardrails can too easily benefit speculative investors while pricing out the people who built these communities.

The changes I’d have made to HOME is pairing it with real anti-displacement protections, completing an equity-focused overlay, expanding support for heirs’ property owners and longtime homeowners, and transparent tracking of neighborhood-level impacts so the City can see who is benefiting and who is being pushed out.

I’d also focus on new housing near transit and existing infrastructure, while creating real pathways to homeownership; not just more rental units. The standard should be simple: housing policy must help District 1 residents remain, build wealth, and thrive, rather than make it easier for their neighborhoods to be replaced.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

Building more market-rate housing has played a role in easing rent pressure in Austin. When a large number of apartments come online, renters get more choices, and landlords face more competition. That’s helped bring rents down in recent years, but lower average rents don’t automatically mean every Austin family can afford to stay in their neighborhood.

A citywide market trend doesn’t erase displacement pressure in District 1, where longtime renters, seniors, and homeowners still face rising taxes, redevelopment pressure, and the loss of community around them.

That’s why I don’t see this as a choice between building housing and protecting residents. Austin needs both. We should keep adding housing near existing infrastructure, but pair market-rate development with real anti-displacement protections, support for heirs’ property owners and longtime homeowners, renter protections, and real paths to homeownership.

My concern with HOME and Proposition Q was never that Austin should stop building. It was that major changes moved forward without enough transparency, community input, or enforceable protections for the people most at risk of being priced out. The measure of success isn’t just how many units get built. It’s whether District 1 residents can stay, build wealth, and actually share in the growth opportunity.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes, I support increasing opportunities for people to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in D1. Better sidewalks connecting neighborhoods to schools, transit stops, and parks aren’t a luxury investment; they’re a basic one, and they’re achievable.

The necessary change is closing sidewalk gaps and building the sidewalks that are missing altogether, tackled incrementally so the work actually gets done instead of stalling on a citywide wish list. I’d push for resident surveys (online and on paper), so people can tell us directly where the gaps hurt them most. If we’re building this infrastructure, residents’ voices should shape it, not just receive it.

Safety has to be part of this too. Residents aren’t going to walk or bike if they don’t feel safe crossing the street or traveling along a major corridor. No amount of new sidewalk fixes that.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

TTo improve sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails, we start where the need is greatest: near schools, job centers, transit stops, the places people are actually walking and biking every day.

Once we know where the gaps are, transportation projects should be coordinated to fix them together, not one at a time on separate timelines. And when a road gets reconstructed, the bike lane gets rebuilt with it; not left off for a future project that never comes.
On funding: I support going after state and federal grants first, so we’re not putting the full weight of this on Austin taxpayers. Public-private partnerships and developer contributions should help fill the gap too, especially where new development is driving the need for better infrastructure in the first place.

And this has to be equitable, not just efficient. District 1 and other historically underserved neighborhoods have waited long enough. Investment should go where the need is, not where it’s always gone.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

Given where Austin’s budget actually stands, we have to be smart about every dollar, not just spend more of it. That starts with preserving the affordable housing we already have. It’s almost always cheaper to keep an existing unit affordable than to build a new one from the ground up, and we’re leaving savings on the table if we don’t treat preservation as a priority.

Leaning harder into partnerships with nonprofit housing organizations, who can often stretch public dollars further than the city can alone, could help, too. And city-owned land sitting there with no infrastructure should be evaluated for housing now, not left on a list for someday. On top of that, I’d pursue state and federal grants aggressively.

Austin isn’t trying to solve this entirely on the backs of local taxpayers.
Here’s the bottom line: every public dollar we spend on housing should be judged by the question “Does it actually produce affordable homes for the people who need them most?” Not a process. Not intentions. Results.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

The barriers to building housing aren’t the same everywhere in Austin, and that’s part of the problem. High land and construction costs, plus outdated infrastructure, make some areas genuinely harder to build in. But in wealthier, high-opportunity neighborhoods, the barrier usually isn’t infrastructure at all; it’s political will. Those areas often have the zoning protections and the organized opposition to keep density out, while districts like mine get asked to absorb the growth the rest of the city won’t.

Permitting delays make this worse everywhere, adding real cost to every project regardless of where it’s built. And I don’t dismiss residents’ concerns about traffic, school capacity, or neighborhood character. Those are real concerns and deserve honest public engagement, not a rubber stamp. But that engagement has to apply the same way in every part of Austin, not just in the neighborhoods with the least power to push back.

I support reviewing our development regulations to remove barriers that raise costs without actually protecting anyone. And I believe housing production has to be shared fairly across this city. D1 has carried more than its share of growth for years. It’s time other parts of Austin carried theirs.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

Yes. I’d support the city’s current opposition efforts and hold a strong line against the MoPac South expansion as currently proposed. I’ll be honest, this is the same standard I’ve applied every time.

This project would add tolled express lanes along the corridor, and Council was right to raise concerns that the environmental review doesn’t adequately address the effects on air quality, water quality, sensitive environmental areas, and nearby parkland.

I opposed HOME and Prop Q for the same reason I oppose this project as written: because “trust us, it’ll work out” isn’t good enough when real people’s lives, health, and neighborhoods are on the line. Like those fights, this comes down to whether the process earns public trust or just moves forward because it’s easier than doing the work right.

I don’t believe Austinites should have to pay a toll for the promise of a faster commute while everyone else is left with more traffic, more environmental harm, and fewer transportation choices. Adding highway capacity might move cars for a while, but it’s no substitute for a transportation system that’s safe, reliable, affordable, and sustainable.

I’d push CTRMA and TxDOT to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement instead of leaning on a Finding of No Significant Impact. A finding like that doesn’t hold up to real scrutiny for a project this size. Also, we could push for a smaller alternative: no more than one additional lane in each direction, focused on fixing the actual bottlenecks and safety problems instead of just building bigger. That’s exactly what Austin’s own resolution already asked for.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

Yes, the voters of Austin approved this funding and we should respect the will of the voters, not relitigate it every budget cycle. I’ll fight for it every year it’s threatened, and I’ll use the relationships I’ve built across the region and at the state level to keep our transit plans from getting picked apart by people who don’t have Austin’s interest at heart.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

Yes, we need to increase our supply of affordable and market rate housing options, especially in District 1. Leading with more equitable and transit-oriented housing developments should be a priority. The city’s reliance over car-centric development has led to a rapid increase in the cost of living for people that want to call Austin home. We have made it extremely difficult for recent graduates, empty nesters, or young families to afford to be able to live here and increasing our middle homes supply could help to offset this.

In District 1, I’d look first along existing transit corridors and near job centers, so new housing serves the people already living here rather than displacing them. My process starts the way I’ve always organized: knock every door, build the coalition first, so the community shapes the map instead of just reacting to it.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

Yes, I would have voted in support of both HOME Phase 1 and Phase 2. The HOME initiative brings a substantial significant positive impact to District 1 where we need more affordable housing options. Property values in East Austin have climbed fast, and expanding housing capacity toward smaller units gives young homeowners a shot at ownership instead of leaving that door open only to people who can already afford a large single-family home on a large single-family lot. That’s how we keep District 1 a diverse community instead of one that only the privileged can afford to live in. The neighborhoods in East Austin have significantly risen in value and increasing the housing capacity to include a larger supply of smaller homes means more opportunities for a wider variety of homeowners and will lead to a more diverse community across all parts of District 1.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

In many places, supply takes pressure off the whole market. But supply alone won’t solve affordability or displacement in District 1. I think about this as part of a community-led plan that I am proposing to tackle this large affordability issue with a three-part solution: lowering costs, raising incomes, and expanding pathways to ownership. Market-rate construction helps with the first, but without deed-restricted affordable units and protections for the families already here, growth alone can still push people out. Austin needs to be pro-housing and pro-community at the same time, not one or the other.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes. Housing and transportation are the same fight. When we build homes far from jobs and transit, we force people into cars they can’t afford. I’ll work to support more shade over our sidewalks and streets, tree canopies, better bike lanes, and stronger public transit.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

I’d start where I see the risk every day in court: our most dangerous corridors, like near I-35, where working families have no safe way to walk their kids to school. Sidewalks, shade, and safe crossings in District 1 come first, not last. I’d also prioritize filling the small gaps in our existing sidewalk and bike network, because closing one short gap can connect a whole neighborhood to a school or a job that’s otherwise out of reach on foot or by bike.

On funding, I’d make sure District 1 projects are shovel-ready so we’re positioned to win federal and regional dollars when they become available, rather than losing out because we weren’t ready. That means implementing part of my platform that supports a District 1 Economic Opportunity Fund, and staying engaged with CAMPO and CTRMA, not just showing up when a fight is already underway.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

I would work with organizations and community groups for public and private funding to support community-led work, including projects like Housing + Health with Blackland CDC. Additionally, looking at infill housing (which should pay for itself) can add badly needed missing middle housing along the way. It uses the roads, water lines, and schools we’ve already built instead of extending them further out, which is a lot cheaper than greenfield development. I’d pair that growth with real sensitivity to the East Austin families already living here, so the tax base and housing supply can grow without pushing them out.

Where density bonuses aren’t penciling out because of construction costs, I want us to look at other tools already on the table, like fee waivers, faster permitting, and public land, instead of waiting on a bond cycle that may not come year after year. And I’ll be honest that some of the tools I’d want, like stronger regulation of institutional investors buying up single-family homes, run into state preemption. That doesn’t mean we stop pushing, it means we need to be smart about what we can actually deliver from the dais.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

The barrier isn’t really zoning capacity in the abstract, it’s political courage and will. It’s a lot easier for a city to approve density in the neighborhoods with the least power to fight it, which is exactly why District 1 has absorbed more than its share while high-opportunity areas haven’t. If missing middle housing is allowed by-right, that rule has to actually apply everywhere, not just where the opposition is weakest.

I’ve spent 26 years building coalitions from the ground up, and that’s the same muscle this takes. Regional and citywide power only shifts when people organize for it, so I’d work with other council members, and with groups like AURA, to hold every part of the city to the same standard, instead of letting the burden keep landing on the neighborhoods that have already given the most.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

I would oppose the expansion and push for an even firmer position to redirect the finances toward transit and urgent multimodal investments for District 1 instead of added highway capacity.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

No, not unconditionally. I am in favor of public transit when it is cost-effective. Project Connect has many parts and the cost-effectiveness differs by project.

One part is an expansion of Metro Rapid. High-speed buses are usually cost effective. I am in favor of this part.

Another part is the Green Line commuter rail. The existing Red Line has a high cost per passenger. In 2010, it had a subsidy of $36.69 per passenger. I know that Project Connect has built doubled tracks at more locations on the Red Line so I expected that cost to drop. If I read the Federal Transit Administration’s report on CapMetro correctly, the Red Line is “Hybrid Rail” and in 2024 had an operating cost of $62.74 per trip. Minus the $3.50 ticket price, that’s a subsidy of $59.24 per passenger. Commuter rail, in general, is difficult to do cost-effectively because you must pay employees in the morning and evening and there are few passengers using it during the day. Thus, I am against the Green Line.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/metrorail-in-search-of-riders-11748617/
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2024/60048.1.pdf

The most expensive part of Project Connect is the light rail. In 2020, I did a rough cost-benefit analysis of light rail vs bus rapid transit (BRT) vs. car. For street-level light rail and BRT, I computed the net-present-cost for rides on then-planned Orange and Blue Lines through 2040. Light rail investments were depreciated on a 50-year time-frame. For comparison, I looked at cars carrying 1.1 passengers, using VTPI’s full cost model in a city at rush-hour. VTPI’s model accounts for the costs of depreciation, gas, repairs, travel time, congestion, roads, parking, accidents, pollution, greenhouse gases, noise, and more.

Light rail: $1.25
BRT: $0.63
car: $1.84

Light rail was cheaper than a car. But it was also twice the cost per-passenger-mile of BRT (with a slight increase in speed and a large upside in capacity). These were rough estimates and, at the time, I didn’t know all the details of Project Connect so I decided not to oppose the project. After all, it was still cheaper than a car.

But, in 2020, interest rates were low. From 2012 to 2020, the 10-year U. S. Treasury bond hovered around 2%. Now, it trades 4.77%. High interest rates are a sign from the market to not invest now. I have not heard that Austin Transit Partnership hedged or issued bonds early to lock in the low interest rate. Their actions indicate the opposite: they shrank the service area and removed the underground section.

Given higher interest rates and a smaller service area, the cost per passenger mile has increased. Probably substantially. I suspect it is higher than the total cost of a car.

But we are not at the start of Project Connect. We are in the middle. There are already sunk costs and assets, like the environmental review. Contracts have also been signed. I have not read those contracts and do not know the penalties for backing out of them. If I believe that, given the current state, the expected future costs and benefits are better than the total cost for a car, I will work to preserve the light rail portion of Project Connect. If they are not, I will work to divert the funding to bus rapid transit and ask voters what to do with the excess.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

Yes.

I am particularly a fan of townhomes. They take up little land and are affordable where land is expensive. They are often owned, which comes with freedom, tax benefits, and equity. According to the book “Regulation for Revenue”, by Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez, they are cheaper for the City to provide utility connections to than other houses. They are popular in Houston and I’d like to see them offered here.

I would like Austin to have a form-based zoning code, which restricts the outside of the building and prevents specific features that may bother neighbors. Our residents should have the freedom to arrange the inside of their homes however they want. Be it townhomes, triplexes, duplexes, or single-family homes.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

TYes, I would have voted for HOME phase 1 and 2 as passed. They were a dramatic improvement on previous laws.

I would change HOME to eliminate the minimum lot size and maximum units-per-lot. Especially within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, and UT, where residents could walk, bike/ebike/scooter, and ride transit. The minimum lot size and maximum units-per-lot force buyers to purchase more expensive land than they want and drive up the cost of owning or renting a house.

HOME made it easier to put more units on a lot, but didn’t make it easier to split a lot. Even with later ordinances, it is still cheaper and easier for developers to create “horizontal condos” rather than split lots. I would make it easier to split a lot and incentivize undoing of horizontal condo agreements. The condo agreements are an unnecessary complication that affects insurance, inheritance, lawsuits, tax filing, and future development. These agreements are not as bad as deed restrictions, but I expect they will last just as long. The City of Austin needs to make lot splitting the default and incentivize owners of horizontal condos to convert them to split lots. We should do it now, when there are few, rather than later.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

More market-rate housing has played a big part in lowering rents. Zillow says metro Austin’s rent has fallen 11% in 4 years, the best in the country. Pew agrees.

https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents

More market-rate housing has lowered the cost of existing houses. This graph shows the nominal price staying stable, which means the inflation-adjusted price has fallen about 5.7% since HOME passed.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS12420Q

Thus, the effect of more market-rate housing on affordability is clear.

The effect on displacement is more complicated. When discussing displacement, it is important to keep in mind that it happens to a community, not an individual. Members of the community will always be leaving their homes. Some will move to different cities or pass away. It is important to check if younger members of the same community are moving into the neighborhood. If that stops, displacement is sure to happen.

Let’s consider displacement for renters and owners, when market restrictions have been removed. That is, redevelopment is more profitable and older buildings are more likely to be sold, torn down, and replaced by more new housing.

If the residents of the older building rented, they may look to rent nearby. Because many buildings in a neighborhood were built at the same time, they will get redeveloped at the same time. The neighborhood will have fewer and fewer old buildings and more and more new buildings. The new buildings are more expensive because they are new and have nicer features (new appliances, modern styling, new technology, etc.). If they remain renters, they will usually choose to find a new place in a different neighborhood. This is because there are usually older units for rent elsewhere in the city that are similar to their previous unit in price, size, and amenities. The market could create new units with the same rent in the same neighborhood, but they will be smaller and/or have fewer features. Other members of their community are unlikely to move into the neighborhood, for the same reasons. Thus, increased market-rate housing is likely to accelerate displacement of people who remain renters in the area.

If the residents of the older building owned it, then they chose to sell it at that time. Let’s focus on those that had a life event that required moving elsewhere, such as to be near grandchildren or into a retirement community. So, they will not want to live in one of the new buildings; will a younger member of their community want to? Possibly. It will depend on the price. The communities suffering displacement have fewer individuals with wealth and/or credit to buy expensive houses. So, the determining factor for owner displacement is the price of the new units.

The lower bound for house price is determined by the minimum lot size. Land in historic east Austin costs over $50 per square foot. So, requiring 5,750 sqft meant the price for the land to build a house is over $287,500. What can a Black household afford? The median Black household income in the US is $55,000. If they spent the maximum recommended on a mortgage, taxes, and insurance (28%) at current mortgage rates (6.71%), they might afford a house with a total cost of $191,000. Since the land is at least $287,500, the median Black household cannot even afford the land with a 5,750 sqft minimum lot size.

Our new minimum lot size of 1,800 sqft makes the land cost at least $90,000. If we assume it is exactly $90,000, the median Black household can afford $101,000 for the building, which is possible with a manufactured home. So, the smaller minimum lot size means the median Black household can afford to buy in their historic community. But more than just the median should live there and it is likely that demand will bid up the price of those small lots. I would get rid of the minimum lot size entirely. There should not be a minimum wealth necessary to own land in historic east Austin.

Thus, removing market restrictions for a neighborhood with a low-income community is likely to increase displacement among people who remain renters and decrease displacement among new homeowners. That sounds bad for renters, but consider what those restrictions also did: they kept older buildings around. They delayed the construction of new buildings that have new appliances, modern styling, and new technology, including energy efficient insulation and heat pumps. Those laws didn’t stop redevelopment — new buildings would get built eventually. The laws kept residents in older, crappier buildings longer than necessary. The members of the community that remain renters benefit from “filtering”: with fewer old buildings, their new home is likely to be newer built than their old one and have more amenities. I know this does not compensate for the negative effects of displacement on the communities, such as being farther from cultural institutions and making it more difficult to organize to protect their communities. But I don’t see how those are avoidable, without extreme subsidies or condemning Austin’s residents to live in older and older buildings. The best of the realistic options is more market-rate housing with the opportunity that more of the community can afford to buy homes in their historic parts of Austin.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes.

For walkers, we need wide sidewalks downtown and, elsewhere, we need sidewalks where they walk. I’ve seen a blind kid walking in the street because there were no sidewalks! We especially need sidewalks near transit infrastructure. On City Council, I will devote more money to sidewalks.

For cyclists, we need bike lanes in the right places. I’ve seen good bike lanes, like on 3rd and 4th streets downtown, which have bikes on them at all hours. And I’ve seen bad bike lanes, like on 183 Frontage Rd near my house. The speed limit is 55 mph! And the bike lane isn’t protected — it is just a line on the ground.

As a rule of thumb for “good bike lanes”, I think they are within 3 miles of our major destinations: downtown, the Capitol, and UT. The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management data indicates that shorter trips are more likely to be taken by bike or e-bike. For distances between .5 kilometers and 5 kilometers, more than a third of all trips are by bike. For distances larger than 5 kilometers, it drops off. 5 kilometers is 3.11 miles, which I round to 3. Within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, or UT, I will work to get a protected bike lane on every 3rd street.

https://english.kimnet.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2024/01/10/cycling-facts-2023/KiM+brochure+Cycling+facts+2023_def.pdf

For transit riders, it will depend on housing. Transit works best with dense housing near downtown. When I talked to voters, I got requests for bus service far from downtown, because that is where lower-income households are. But it would not be cost effective, because the housing is not dense and it is far from downtown. I will work for transit-oriented development that creates the density that supports transit. I will work to expand high-speed bus lines. I will push for shorter times between bus arrivals, so that wait time is minimized. And I will push for short times to board transit.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

My priorities for City Council are to [1] increase the disposable income (income adjusted for cost of living) of Austinites, [2] increase Austinites’ value of City services, and [3] increase Austinites’ life spans. I will estimate Austinites’ value of City services based on surveys and whether or not that service reaches them. That will guide my investment in sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.

For sidewalks and bike lanes, they improve lifespans when they are less dangerous. Cars are dangerous. You’re less likely to get hit by a car walking on a sidewalk than in the street. And, for cyclists, they’re safer on a protected bike lane. I’ll use estimates based on car traffic, pedestrian or cyclist traffic, and the cost of the improvement to keep the most Austinites safe.

For sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails, they can increase Austinites’ value of City services. Sidewalks and protected bike lanes are not only safer but more pleasant to travel on. I will use surveys to determine how Austinites value these paths in general and the distance from each property to each destination to figure out specific values. My goal is to both improve Austinites’ average value of City services and equalize them. (If you don’t have a sidewalk to your home, you really should get a tax rebate.)

I’ll use value-of-City-services estimates along with the lifespan numbers to guide the number and placement of projects. Sidewalks and bike lanes used primarily for commutes will be included with transportation funding, because that’s where they belong. For pure pleasure projects, like park trails used for exercise and not general transportation, those will be put on bonds that voters may choose to fund.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

Funding should come directly from taxes. Density bonuses make it harder to build housing than just allowing the zoning by right. And “harder to build housing” is the opposite of what Austin needs.

We should limit subsidies to housing for the poor. That includes Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for those unable to run their own lives and vouchers for households under 30% MFI.

Current Austin housing policy can subsidize housing at the 65% or even 80% MFI level. MFI is called “Median Family Income” but the formula derives from the median 4-person family. The median 4-person family has 2 incomes. So, 100% MFI is roughly equal to twice the median individual income. Thus, with 65% MFI, more than half of single-income families qualify and at 80%, I expect, more than half of all families qualify. While I sympathize with their need, I believe those families are best served by lowering the cost of market-rate housing. I will redirect subsidies to those whose need is highest at the 30% MFI level.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

There are a number of barriers: zoning, deed restrictions, transportation, political discretion, and market inertia.

Zoning restricts housing by banning it. First, I’ll make our zones hierarchical like in Europe and Japan: allowing residential buildings in every zone except industrial. Second, I’ll loosen the limits on height, on volume (floor-area ratio or FAR), setbacks, and units-per-acre (including the minimum lot size). The units-per-acre is the most important because it forces families to buy a minimum amount of expensive land, driving up the minimum cost to own a home. There shouldn’t be a minimum cost to own in Austin.

Deed restrictions are contracts attached to land that can restrict anything: number of units, setbacks, and, when courts enforced them, the race of the owner. The biggest current problem with deed restrictions is that they can last forever. We limit most contracts to 99 years — there should be a limit for deed restrictions. I will ask the state to put a time limit on deed restrictions, unless renewed by all parties. I will offer City enforcement of deed restrictions that have a 10-year limit, as long as there are no other deed restrictions on the property. I hope this will encourage owners to organize to remove old deed restrictions, especially those with the disgusting racial clauses. No buyer should have to agree to a racist clause, even depowered, to complete the purchase of a home.

Transportation is important because residents include transportation in their decision of where to live. We cannot just have affordable housing — it needs to be paired with affordable transportation. That means walking, bike/ebike/scooter, and transit. I will push for wider sidewalks downtown. I will push for a protected bike lane on every 3rd street within 3 miles of downtown, the Capitol, and UT. I will push for expanding high-speed buses and buses having rapid arrivals. If it is still cost-effective, I will support light rail.

Political discretion is requiring a political vote to build housing or, more usually, change the zoning to allow housing to be built. It restricts housing by making the process uncertain and making it harder to build unpopular housing, even if it is needed. My favorite example of unpopular housing is Community First Village, which is a wonderful development for the formerly unhoused, but was unable to be built in Austin because of political discretion. If something is unfit for Austin, we should have a clear law about it and let judges decide, not politicians. This is best solved by expanding zoning, to avoid the discretionary zoning changes, and making the laws by-right not by-City-Council-vote.

Lastly, market inertia is when new builders do not enter the market and the builders in the market don’t try new buildings. We can encourage new builders to enter the market by simplifying and standardizing our laws. This will let builders from other areas in Texas more easily build in Austin and that competition will lower prices for our residents. As for new building types, we should encourage the building of Single Room Occupancies (SROs). These are dorms for adults: small rooms where residents share bathrooms and share kitchens. These have the chance to be extremely affordable market-rate housing that would be available to our residents who are currently temporarily homeless. Austin has not built many SROs and, even if zoning allows them, we may need to offer grants to builders to take the risk to build a new type of building and start the business to operate it.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

TGoing from City Council Resolution 20260423-064, I agree with some aspects of the City’s position and disagree with some.

I agree with its emphasis on the environment and fighting sprawl.

I agree with its recommendations to “provide continuous, safe pedestrian and bicycle trails and crossings” and “support express transit service”. Austin should promote green high-capacity transportation.

I agree with the purpose but disagree with the wording of their recommendation to “reduce or not increase vehicle miles traveled”. Cities are for people to meet with other people. More traveling means meeting more people — it literally fulfills the purpose of a city. Yes, there are negative consequences for travel by car: collision deaths, collision costs, pollution, noise, land use, time, etc.. But there are negative consequences for every form of travel. Austin should make sure residents pay for the negative consequences of their choices — this is known in economics as a Pigouvian tax — but not try to limit their choice of travel in any way. I’d prefer this recommendation be worded to prevent the negative consequences associated with car travel rather than limit vehicle miles traveled.

I also disagree in part with the recommendation to “add no more than one lane in each direction”. I am not in favor of widening the entire highway, but I am in favor of expanding the bridge dramatically. The Colorado River cuts through Austin, separating downtown from nearby land south of the river. As the City grows, we need more connections across the river. I’d prefer high-capacity green ones, with bus lanes and bike lanes, but I accept that many residents use cars. I know that expanding the bridge will not dramatically reduce congestion — within 3 years, induced demand will kick in. People who drive more often will move south of the river or people already there will drive more often. But a wider bridge will increase the number of trips taken, which is a benefit in itself. Cities are for people to meet with other people and a wider bridge will increase meetings.

Lastly, I agree with the recommendation that the project “incorporates targeted modifications designed to alleviate known problem areas and improve overall traffic flow”. This is just common sense.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

Yes, I’ve fought for rapid bus lines and anti-displacement dollars in my capacity as a board member for ReThink35 and a member of NCINC, and will continue to be a proud transit advocate on Austin City Council. That is what my neighbors on the east side deserve, not more concrete to serve the special interests that have captured our state government.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

The Blackland neighborhood in central east Austin has withstood waves of gentrification because of the Community Development Corporation formed by and for members of the community. Among my proudest accomplishments is leading this historic organization to produce deeply affordable units, both single- and multi-family, that broke the latest tide of gentrification. I believe building truly affordable housing of different sizes stabilizes housing costs for all, which is why I absolutely support the production of duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments that are deeply affordable for residents impacted by the affordability crisis. In City Hall, I will fight to retain our right to implement zoning standards that create affordability and advocate for incentives to do the same on a deeply affordable basis.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

I would have voted against the HOME Initiative because the entitlements it creates primarily benefit outside investors in neighborhoods impacted by displacement. This is borne out by the fact that many homeowners could not afford to take advantage of the entitlements under HOME, which is why I advocated for an equity overlay and anti-displacement measures. I was also an early advocate for establishing creative financing options for low- and middle-income homeowners, such as forgivable loans, so they can actually afford to build additional units on their lots. I also encouraged the expansion of manufactured housing options that meet standards of safety and climate resistance as secondary units to increase affordable unit access. As Council Member, I will propose an Affordable Financing Access resolution so that Austin homeowners, not private investors, can take advantage of their right to build the affordable units Austin needs and secure their generational wealth.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

During the height of the housing affordability crisis in Austin, developers, real estate, and corporate landlords saw massive profits. The vast majority of the increase in supply was market-rate housing. In recent years, Austin has ranked among the highest overall vacancy rates in the country, at times with 15% vacancy for market-rate units. Meanwhile, very little deeply affordable housing was produced – only 400 units of the 20,000 unit goal in the Strategic Housing Blueprint for households 30% MFI & below.

The narrative that housing costs have stabilized this past year due to the success of housing deregulation policies like “HOME” & “DB90” that increase “housing supply” is misleading because these policies haven’t produced many units yet since development takes years. This narrative also fails to take into account the larger economic instability we are facing as a result of federal and state-level policies favoring the ultra-wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Last year, Austin saw huge tech layoffs and, for the first time in 20 years, more people leaving than moving in. This led to falling home sale prices, resulting in declining profits from the real estate industry’s preferred, high-income clients. Austin rents still haven’t stabilized to pre-pandemic prices, with upzoning causing displacement and speculation. In other words, many people were pushed out of Austin and were forced into the streets during the frenzy of the profit-driven/speculative “tech boom” housing market. Evictions remain high, above pre-Covid averages, while homelessness (especially among youth & people experiencing homelessness for the first time) continues to increase.

The housing market doesn’t exist in a vacuum, as an idealized model of “supply & demand.” In a wealthy demand-driven housing market, like Austin during the pandemic, deregulation of zoning for private developer-driven supply made things worse. Many affordable units were lost in the process of market-rate redevelopment for profit. Through cases like Acacia Cliffs apartments, we know that policies incentivizing market-rate development can also incentivize existing affordable units to be destroyed for projects with no units the displaced residents can afford.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?
Yes, I support increasing this number. In order to do this, we need to make it easier, quicker, safer and more comfortable for people. D1 needs additional rapid bus, infrastructure updates so buses can navigate traffic more quickly from stop to stop, and add more shade, benches, and waste receptacles to bus stops to make them more comfortable between stops on long, hot summer days. Where we can, we should add more bike lanes to major roads and invest in ways to calm traffic so those routes are safe for bikers. D1 also needs more sidewalks and deserves more connective trails which can reduce the demand for more concrete in areas most severely affected by heat islands.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

Our current budget for new sidewalk construction is approximately $10 million per year, which is not enough to reach our goals. Funding for bike lanes and trails are similarly limited. I support implementation of the Sidewalks, Crossings, and Shared Streets Plan including prioritizing resources in areas that are historically neglected and providing consistent funding through the non-bond sources for sustainable repair and rehabilitation including the Transportation User Fee. I also, as a neighborhood leader, believe it is necessary and effective to collaborate with residents, community partners, and philanthropic partners in order to leverage multiple sources of funding and involve the community in projects that improve quality of life, such as trail expansion.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

The City of Austin hasn’t come anywhere near the goals of the Strategic Housing Blueprint when it comes to the housing that is most needed for residents impacted by the housing affordability, displacement, and homelessness crisis. Austin urgently needs an Affordable Housing Bond, community-driven budgeting that prioritizes 0-30% MFI units and PSH units, and to proactively pursue development strategies and land use policies that protect and produce deeply affordable housing.

I am proud to have produced deeply affordable units while serving as Chair of Blackland CDC. The permitting process and fees create a higher barrier for affordable developers to build deeply affordable housing on already expensive land. I will propose measures to streamline permitting for truly affordable developers, and waive fees for affordable housing projects, making the process of affordable housing development quicker and cheaper. I will also push to expand land and funding access for truly affordable developers, including Community Development Corporations.

I will fight every budget season to put more city housing dollars toward housing units priced for the working families who need them most, not just the higher-income “affordable” units that still leave people struggling. These are seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, service workers — residents most at risk of homelessness. When developers receive entitlements in exchange for affordability, I will push to increase that standard to one that is truly meaningful for residents most impacted by the housing affordability crisis, and use my vote to demand real affordability commitments before any developer gets the green light.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

The biggest barriers in these cases are land prices. Unfortunately, Acacia Cliffs is an example of deeply affordable housing in a high-opportunity area that is vulnerable to demolition once market conditions become ideal to utilize entitlements granted by DB90. I will ensure that City-owned land in high-opportunity areas is utilized to produce truly affordable housing.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

More lanes = more cars. As a board member of ReThink35 and a member of NCINC, I fought against the expansion of I-35 because it adds to the disparities of East Austin at a time when we need to be connecting the city with better public transit options. With TxDOT proceeding with the expansion, however, we must be vigilant against additional expansions in surrounding areas outside of downtown, especially on the east side which has been subject to arbitrary expansions, toll routing, and forced car-dependency. I will certainly leverage my voice and vote on the dais to achieve better representation on board with influence in this discussion, such as CAMPO, so that we have voices familiar with our values advocating with us. Austin is the major economic hub of Central Texas, and we should have representation reflecting that status.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

Yes. I support protecting the dedicated funding Austin voters approved for Project Connect and respecting the purpose for which those funds were authorized. At the same time, protecting funding must go hand in hand with strong financial oversight, transparency, realistic timelines, and accountability for project delivery.

As a Council Member, I would want residents to be able to clearly see how funds are being used, what milestones are being met, where delays or cost increases are occurring, and what outcomes Austin is receiving from its investment. I support expanding reliable transportation options and connectivity throughout Austin, including strong connections for District 1, while ensuring that major public investments remain financially responsible and accountable to taxpayers.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

I support expanding missing-middle housing options in Austin because our housing needs are diverse, and our housing supply should reflect that. Duplexes, townhomes, cottage courts, and smaller multifamily developments can provide important options between a traditional single-family home and a large apartment complex.

However, I would not support a one-size-fits-all approach that allows every form of 3–16 unit development automatically on every single-family lot without considering the surrounding conditions. I believe additional density should be paired with responsible planning for infrastructure capacity, drainage and flooding, utilities, transportation access, environmental protections, and the potential for displacement of existing residents.

I would particularly support making missing-middle housing easier to build along appropriate transit corridors, activity centers, and other areas where infrastructure and transportation can support additional residents, while also identifying opportunities within neighborhoods where smaller-scale housing can fit appropriately.

In District 1, displacement must be part of this conversation. Increasing housing supply is important, but I do not want redevelopment incentives to unintentionally encourage the removal of longtime residents, new residents, or naturally occurring affordable housing. I would support streamlined processes for appropriate missing-middle projects while strengthening preservation and anti-displacement strategies for vulnerable communities.

My goal is not to choose between protecting neighborhoods and creating housing. We have to find ways to do both: expand housing choices, create opportunities for renters and homeowners at different income levels, use land more efficiently, and make sure existing Austinites have a meaningful opportunity to remain in the communities they helped build.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

I support the overall goal behind HOME of expanding housing choices and creating more opportunities for Austinites to find housing they can afford. However, I would not say that I would have voted for every provision exactly as passed without having had the opportunity to evaluate the complete proposal, community feedback, infrastructure impacts, and displacement concerns that would have been before me as a Council Member.

Going forward, I would focus on improving HOME rather than approaching the issue as simply being for or against housing density. I support making appropriate small-scale housing easier and more efficient to build, particularly when unnecessary permitting barriers add costs without providing a meaningful public benefit.

At the same time, I want stronger attention paid to preservation and displacement. Austin has to make room for growth and for new residents who choose to make this city their home, while also making sure longtime residents are not unintentionally displaced as our city continues to grow. Those goals should work together rather than compete against one another.

I would want HOME implementation measured not only by how many units are permitted, but also by what types of housing are produced, whether there are attainable options at different income levels, demolition and displacement trends, infrastructure capacity, and whether both existing and new residents have meaningful opportunities to establish stable lives in Austin.

I also support preservation incentives that make retaining and renovating existing housing financially viable where appropriate. New construction is an important part of meeting Austin’s housing demand, but preservation can also contribute to affordability, neighborhood stability, sustainability, and responsible use of our existing housing stock.

My approach would be to make HOME more effective and easier to use where data shows unnecessary barriers are preventing housing production, while maintaining appropriate standards for drainage, utilities, environmental protection, safety, and infrastructure. I want Austin to produce more housing and welcome continued growth, while measuring whether our policies are actually improving affordability, housing opportunity, and quality of life for the people who call Austin home.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

Building more market-rate housing has played an important role in Austin’s recent rent reductions by increasing overall housing supply and giving renters more options. When more units are available and vacancy increases, property owners have greater competition for renters, which can help reduce rent pressures.

I support continuing to increase Austin’s housing supply, including market-rate housing, because both longtime and new residents need more housing choices. However, I do not believe market-rate construction alone addresses every affordability challenge. A reduction in average rents does not necessarily mean housing has become affordable for every household, particularly residents with very low or fixed incomes.

I believe our housing strategy should include market-rate production alongside preservation of existing housing, subsidized affordable housing, homeownership opportunities, and targeted anti-displacement efforts. We should also pay attention to where new housing is being built so that growth and housing opportunities are distributed throughout Austin rather than concentrated primarily in certain communities.

Completion rates are especially important to me. I want to know not only how many housing units are proposed, approved, or permitted, but how many are actually completed and available for people to live in. We should examine the full pipeline—including permitting timelines, projects that stall, construction completion, occupancy, and the affordability levels ultimately delivered. That gives residents and Council a clearer picture of whether our policies and investments are producing real results.

More supply can reduce pressure on the overall housing market, but success should be measured by more than the number of units proposed. I want to look at completion rates, rents, vacancy, housing availability across income levels, displacement trends, and whether residents are actually experiencing greater housing stability.

Austin needs continued growth to accommodate the people who already call our city home and those who will choose Austin as their home in the future. My goal is to increase housing opportunities while making sure our policies translate into completed housing, greater affordability, and responsible growth.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes. I support increasing safe and reliable opportunities for residents to walk, bike, and use public transit while maintaining transportation choices that serve long-term residents, new residents, seniors, people with disabilities, families, and working residents with different mobility needs.

I support improving connectivity, addressing sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure gaps, and strengthening reliable and accessible transit. As Austin continues to grow as a technology hub, I also believe we should be prepared for emerging transportation options, including autonomous vehicles, with appropriate attention to safety, reliability, accessibility, and cybersecurity.

As with other city investments, I would look at data, funding, implementation, and completion rates to determine whether mobility projects are actually delivering results. My goal is a connected, accessible, and forward-thinking transportation system that gives residents safe and practical choices.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

Knowing the lay of the land is a benefit. As someone born and raised in Austin, I understand that transportation and infrastructure needs can look very different from one neighborhood to another. I support using that local knowledge alongside current data to identify sidewalk gaps, unsafe connections, needed bike infrastructure, and opportunities to strengthen our trail network.

I would prioritize safety, accessibility, connectivity, and completion rates, with particular consideration for long-term and new residents, seniors, people with disabilities, families, and residents who depend on walking, biking, or transit.

Funding should begin with responsible use of existing transportation and mobility resources, voter-approved bond funding where applicable, and pursuing available state and federal transportation grants. Before asking taxpayers for additional funding, I believe we should understand what has already been allocated, what remains incomplete, and whether existing dollars are being used efficiently.

For me, it comes back to responsible budgeting and measurable results: identify the need, properly fund the priority, complete the project, and account for the outcome.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

Given Austin’s current fiscal realities, I believe affordable housing requires a disciplined, diversified, and ethical approach rather than dependence on any single funding source.

I would prioritize responsible stewardship of existing housing resources, outside funding opportunities, and appropriate partnerships, while considering preservation and rehabilitation when they can provide quality affordable housing efficiently.

With limited taxpayer resources, transparency and accountability are essential. We should understand what we are spending, what is being produced, who is being served, and the completion rate of funded projects.

Austin must continue addressing affordability, but we must do so ethically, responsibly, and sustainably—protecting the public interest while ensuring that investments translate into completed housing and measurable results.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

I believe the data itself demonstrates why equitable distribution matters. District 1 has contributed significantly to Austin’s affordable housing goals, and I am proud that our district continues to provide housing opportunities for people across different income levels. At the same time, affordable housing should not be disproportionately concentrated in only certain areas of Austin.

Barriers can vary by area and include land and construction costs, development processes, infrastructure capacity, financing, zoning, and other location-specific challenges. I believe we should identify and responsibly address those barriers while creating greater housing opportunity throughout the city, including high-resource areas.

This is also where accountability and completion rates matter to me. I want to distinguish between housing that is proposed, funded, under construction, and actually completed and available to residents.

Austin’s growth should provide opportunities for both longtime and new residents across different income levels. Every part of our city should participate in creating housing opportunities, while we remain thoughtful about affordability, infrastructure, preservation, and displacement.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

Yes. I would support the City’s current position and maintain a responsible but firm approach. A project of this size deserves a thorough understanding of its long-term transportation, environmental, community, and financial impacts before moving forward.

I support the City’s request for a full Environmental Impact Statement and serious consideration of alternatives that can improve mobility while reducing unnecessary environmental and community impacts. That is especially important when considering our water resources, parkland, wildlife, tree canopy, surrounding communities, and Austin’s long-term transportation goals.

I am not opposed to improving mobility or infrastructure, but expansion should not automatically be treated as the only solution. I would want the City, CTRMA, CAMPO, TxDOT, and our regional transportation partners to work from reliable data and evaluate reasonable alternatives before determining the appropriate scope.

My position would remain focused on balance: improve mobility where necessary, protect Austin’s environmental resources, account for taxpayer investment, and make decisions based on long-term outcomes rather than simply building more infrastructure because we have the ability to do so.

Will you commit to protecting Project Connect’s dedicated funding against any local, state, or federal efforts to redirect or cut funding, or to delay or obstruct construction?

Yes.

In 1984, prior to the adoption of our current land development code, 14% of Austin’s homes were duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and small apartments. Since then, less than 1% of homes built have been in the missing middle range of 3-16 units. Do you believe missing middle homes should be allowed by-right and easily built in the same zones as single-family homes? If not, what extra restrictions beyond those for single-family homes should apply, and where should missing middle homes be allowed?

Yes.

Would you have voted for the HOME initiative as passed? Should HOME projects be easier to build, or should there be additional restrictions and requirements? What changes would you make to HOME, if any?

Yes, I was vocally supportive of HOME.

What role has building more market-rate housing played in the rent reductions Austin has seen in the past few years? What effect do you believe building market-rate housing has on affordability and displacement?

Making the premarket conditions easier has encouraged much more supply which has brought down market rate housing. There are positive downstream effects of building more market-rate housing.

Do you support increasing the number of people that choose to walk, bike, or take transit to meet their daily needs in your district, and if so, what changes are both necessary and achievable to achieve that goal?

Yes. Allow more commercial amenities closer to neighborhoods.

How would you improve the quality and quantity of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails in Austin, and how would you fund it?

Leverage federal dollars and also for NEW trails, some private-public partnerships.

Austin is currently struggling with budget deficits and reduced bond appetite. Staff has also reported that density bonuses are underperforming, in part due to high construction costs rendering projects infeasible. Given the harsh fiscal and economic realities surrounding the City of Austin, what would be your strategy for funding or producing subsidized affordable housing?

Work closer with community partners and find more federal dollars to leverage.

The Austin Housing Strategic Blueprint Scorecard shows a disparity in the amount of affordable housing built in different parts of Austin, with wealthier high-opportunity areas building significantly less housing. What do you believe are the barriers to building more housing in all parts of Austin, especially high-resource areas, and how would you work to reduce these barriers?

Reliable public transportation and distance from downtown center. I would like to see a rapid bus down Mopac.

If you were on Council today, would you vote to support the City’s current MoPac South opposition efforts (including comments to CAMPO, CTRMA, and TxDOT)? Should the City take a stronger stance against the expansion, a more accommodating one, or maintain its current position? What changes to the project, if any, would you push for?

Stronger stance against expansion. Environmental protections near Barton Springs and not 2 toll lanes. Maybe one if at all.